26 juin 2020 | International, Naval
By: David B. Larter
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy's interminable quest to design and field a next-generation large surface combatant is going back to the drawing board once again, a victim of the Pentagon's disorganization around this year's long-range shipbuilding plan, according to documents and a source familiar with the situation.
The Senate Armed Services Committee stripped $60.4 million dollars from the Navy's proposed fiscal 2021 budget intended to be used for preliminary design work for the future large surface combatant, according to documents released by the committee. Instead, the money is being funneled into a land-based testing facility in Philadelphia that will work on the future combatant's power system, which is the raison d'être for the envisioned class, a source familiar with the deliberations told Defense News.
The money for the large surface combatant design is one of the victims of the Pentagon's inability to produce an annual 30-year shipbuilding plan, an annual requirement that is intended to give Congress an idea of where the Navy wants to steer its fleet, the source said, adding that the large surface combatant was not in the five-year future years defense program which is submitted with the President's budget.
The 30-year shipbuilding plan has been held up this year by the Office of the Secretary of Defense as the Pentagon struggles to come up with a fleet that more closely integrates the Navy and Marine Corps for the Pacific theater and incorporates a significant fleet of unmanned surface and subsurface systems.
It's the latest setback in the effort to field next-generation surface combatants, which has seen more than 20 years of false starts and setbacks.
The Navy initially intended to field a fleet of 21st Century cruisers and destroyers to replace the current Arleigh Burk-class DDGs and Ticonderoga-class cruisers. But the DDG-1000 program was truncated to just three hulls, and the so-called CG(X) cruiser was cancelled in 2010 at the beginning of the Obama Administration.
Given the long lead times for new ship development, as much as a decade or more, the situation is becoming increasingly urgent for the U.S. Navy. Many of the cruisers have reached their effective service lives and the oldest Arleigh Burke-class ships are closing on 30 years of age, but the Navy is not currently planning a class-wide service-life extension program.
For its next-generation large surface combatant, the Navy is looking to field a ship that uses the latest AEGIS combat system destined for its Flight III DDG, but with a hull and power system that has ample margin for integrating future systems such as lasers and rail guns, and with missile magazines able to haul larger hypersonic strike missiles.
But according to the SASC, the Navy is way too early in the process to justify funding for design, especially when Congress doesn't know what the Navy's plans are for fielding it and when.
“The committee lacks sufficient clarity on the Large Surface Combatant (LSC) capability requirements... to support the start of preliminary design for the LSC program or completion of the Capabilities Development Document,” according to a document released by the committee.
The document also shows the SASC directing $75 million toward the Integrated Power and Energy Systems test facility in Philadelphia, known as the ITF, which a source said is where the heavy work of fielding a power system with plenty of margin for future weapons would be performed. That facility should be up and running by 2023, according to the documents.
The FY21 NDAA is currently working its way through Congress and is not yet in its final form, meaning funding for large surface combatant design work could still be reinstated at some point in the process.
Subsystem Development
Congress has been increasingly agitated by the Navy's design-on-the-fly approach to fielding new capabilities, such as the littoral combat ship's mission modules or several of the key technologies that have been holding up the lead Ford-class carrier.
In the view of lawmakers, the delays could be mitigated by taking a more cautious approach to developing new classes of systems, by maturing technologies ahead of launching into construction. For example, if the Advanced Weapons Elevators on Ford had been developed before the start of construction, there would not be a months-long delay in getting the carrier ready for deployment because the system would work before it was installed.
To that end, Congress has been inserting itself heavily into the development of unmanned surface vessels, restricting funding for procurement until the Navy can produce a reliable system.
In its markup of the 2021 NDAA, the House Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee called for restricting funding for procurement of any large unmanned surface vessels, or LUSV, until the Navy can certify it has worked out an appropriate hull and mechanical and electrical system, and that it can operate autonomously for 30 consecutive days.
Furthermore, the Navy must demonstrate a reliable operating system and that any systems integrated into the platform — sonars, radars, etc. — are likewise functioning and reliable.
In short, the language would mean the Navy could not spend procurement dollars on a large unmanned surface vessel until it has a working model, and it may not try to develop those technologies on the fly.
The Defense Department has been championing a major shift away from large surface combatants, based on decisions by Defense Secretary Mark Esper that are in line with his in-house think tank, the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office. The Pentagon wants to focus on fielding more unmanned platforms with missile cells that can be more expendable in a fight and act as an external missile magazine for larger manned combatants with more exquisite sensors.
But Congress has repeatedly balked at the idea because the Navy has yet to produce a concept of operations or a coherent public strategy to back up the investment plan.
15 octobre 2024 | International, Terrestre
BriteStorm is able to perform ‘stand-in jamming’: an airborne electronic warfare capability, deployed ahead of the main force, to deliver high-powered interference against a wide spectrum of threats
3 juillet 2019 | International, Aérospatial
By Anthony Capaccio United Technologies Corp.'s Pratt & Whitney unit is chronically late delivering engines for the Pentagon's costliest program, the F-35, raising questions about whether the company is ready for a surge to full-rate production scheduled for next year. Pratt remains under a previously unreported “Corrective Action Request” from the Defense Contract Management Agency that cites “poor delivery performance” on its current batch of engines for the fighter jet, including for the most complicated version used by the Marine Corps and the U.K. for vertical takeoffs and landings. The agency's action is likely to be watched not only by the Pentagon and international buyers of the F-35 but also by shareholders and investors assessing United Technologies' planned merger with Raytheon Co., which would fortify the combined company's standing as one of the top U.S. defense contractors. The F-35 engines would be one of the new company's top revenue producers. United Technologies Corp.'s Pratt & Whitney unit is chronically late delivering engines for the Pentagon's costliest program, the F-35, raising questions about whether the company is ready for a surge to full-rate production scheduled for next year. Pratt remains under a previously unreported “Corrective Action Request” from the Defense Contract Management Agency that cites “poor delivery performance” on its current batch of engines for the fighter jet, including for the most complicated version used by the Marine Corps and the U.K. for vertical takeoffs and landings. The agency's action is likely to be watched not only by the Pentagon and international buyers of the F-35 but also by shareholders and investors assessing United Technologies' planned merger with Raytheon Co., which would fortify the combined company's standing as one of the top U.S. defense contractors. The F-35 engines would be one of the new company's top revenue producers. The company, which is the sole supplier of engines for the fighter built by Lockheed Martin Corp., must demonstrate by year-end that it has delivered on promised improvements to solve the problems that led to the agency's formal request in December, spokesman Mark Woodbury said in a statement outlining the issues. Full Production The $428 billion F-35 program is scheduled for approval next year to enter full-rate production, the most lucrative phase of a weapons program for contractors. The decision is contingent on an assessment during the aircraft's current round of intensive combat testing that it's effective and can be maintained. Of the $428 billion, as much as $66 billion is to be spent on at least 2,470 engines -- designated the F135 -- for U.S. jets, including $53.4 billion in procurement, according to the Defense Department's latest Selected Acquisition Report on the F-35. Pentagon budget documents indicate the engine program is valued at about $2 billion annually for Pratt, according to Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Douglas Rothacker. John Thomas, a spokesman for Pratt, said in an emailed statement that “we take seriously our responsibility to meet F135 production commitments. The corrective action plan submitted earlier this year lays out how we are doing that. Over the past year, we have invested more than $200 million for additional capacity, and currently have over 100 Pratt & Whitney employees deployed to our supplier facilities in support of production obligations.” Revenue Potential Pratt & Whitney President Bob Leduc underscored the engine's revenue potential to analysts June 17 at the Paris Air Show. United Technologies Corp.'s Pratt & Whitney unit is chronically late delivering engines for the Pentagon's costliest program, the F-35, raising questions about whether the company is ready for a surge to full-rate production scheduled for next year. Pratt remains under a previously unreported “Corrective Action Request” from the Defense Contract Management Agency that cites “poor delivery performance” on its current batch of engines for the fighter jet, including for the most complicated version used by the Marine Corps and the U.K. for vertical takeoffs and landings. The agency's action is likely to be watched not only by the Pentagon and international buyers of the F-35 but also by shareholders and investors assessing United Technologies' planned merger with Raytheon Co., which would fortify the combined company's standing as one of the top U.S. defense contractors. The F-35 engines would be one of the new company's top revenue producers. The company, which is the sole supplier of engines for the fighter built by Lockheed Martin Corp., must demonstrate by year-end that it has delivered on promised improvements to solve the problems that led to the agency's formal request in December, spokesman Mark Woodbury said in a statement outlining the issues. Full Production The $428 billion F-35 program is scheduled for approval next year to enter full-rate production, the most lucrative phase of a weapons program for contractors. The decision is contingent on an assessment during the aircraft's current round of intensive combat testing that it's effective and can be maintained. Of the $428 billion, as much as $66 billion is to be spent on at least 2,470 engines -- designated the F135 -- for U.S. jets, including $53.4 billion in procurement, according to the Defense Department's latest Selected Acquisition Report on the F-35. Pentagon budget documents indicate the engine program is valued at about $2 billion annually for Pratt, according to Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Douglas Rothacker. John Thomas, a spokesman for Pratt, said in an emailed statement that “we take seriously our responsibility to meet F135 production commitments. The corrective action plan submitted earlier this year lays out how we are doing that. Over the past year, we have invested more than $200 million for additional capacity, and currently have over 100 Pratt & Whitney employees deployed to our supplier facilities in support of production obligations.” Revenue Potential Pratt & Whitney President Bob Leduc underscored the engine's revenue potential to analysts June 17 at the Paris Air Show. “So another way to think about the F135 is a year ago we made about eight engines a month,” he said. “Right now we are between 13 and 14 engines a month. But when you think about the F135, it's 16 engines a month for the next 30 years. There will be over 4,000 of these airplanes when it's all said and done,” including foreign sales. The primary issues resulting in late engine deliveries “have been related to supply-chain capacity, material shortages” and production issues, according to the contract management agency. “Engine test failures due to high vibrations and foreign object debris continues to plague” production, the agency said in an internal quarterly assessment for January through March. Deliveries of the Marine Corps model engines “have been consistently late,” it said. As of early June, Pratt & Whitney was contractually required to deliver 108 engines in the latest production contract, the program's 11th. Of the 90 delivered, 88 were “late by an average of 40 days,” Woodbury said in his statement. The Pentagon is close to finalizing the award of the 12th and largest F-35 contract to date with Lockheed and Pratt. Spotty Record The current delays add to Pratt & Whitney's spotty track record. Even as deliveries increased to 81 in 2018 from 48 in 2012, 86% of those were delivered late, up from 48% in late 2017, according to an April report from the Government Accountability Office. Asked whether the contract management agency has confidence Pratt will be ready for a full-production decision, Woodbury said the agency is monitoring milestones in Pratt's corrective action plan and needs to see progress before making that judgment. The agency's assessment said that in light of Pratt & Whitney's track record it believes the company “will encounter issues keeping up with demand for any future low-rate and full-rate production contract” that increases quantities. — With assistance by Rick Clough https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-02/united-technologies-pratt-slow-on-f-35-engines-pentagon-says
17 avril 2023 | International, Terrestre
Deliveries of the “Pansarterrängbil 300″ – as the vehicles will be called in Sweden – will begin within 2023.